If funds believed to have been won through virtual betting sites were actually sent from the accounts of fraud victims, different criminal charges may be brought against the account holder. In practice; aggravated fraud (TCK Art. 158/1-f), theft through information systems (TCK Art. 142/2-e), opposition to Law No. 7258 (illegal betting intermediation), misuse of bank/credit cards (TCK Art. 245) and in some cases intervention in an information system (TCK Art. 244) are the types of crimes discussed.
The nature of the crime varies according to how the money was transferred, the defendant’s role in this process, their intent, and technical evidence. In Supreme Court decisions, “the use of account holders as shell accounts,” “the transfer of accounts to third parties,” “IP records,” “ATM camera footage,” and “the speed of money traffic” are particularly accepted as determining factors.
1. Possible Nature of Crime and Allegations
If money earned through virtual betting sites is paid with funds originating from fraud victims, it is observed that judicial decisions classify different crimes regarding the account holder:
Aggravated Fraud (TCK Art. 158/1-f): Actions carried out by using information systems, banks or credit institutions as tools are evaluated within this scope. The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (2021/36468 E. ) considered the transfer of money deposited into a virtual betting site to the defendant’s account as part of this crime.
Theft via Information Systems (TCK art. 142/2-e): In cases where unauthorized money transfers are made from victim accounts via internet banking, the act is classified as theft (Supreme Court 2nd Criminal Chamber, 2014/22435 M. ; Supreme Court 17th Criminal Chamber, 2015/9413 M. ).
Violation of Law No. 7258: In cases where illegal betting money is facilitated to be collected or transferred, criminal proceedings are initiated according to Article 5 of this law. In MASAK reports, such accounts can be defined as “front accounts used in illegal betting” (Constitutional Court, 27/7/2022).
Misuse of Bank or Credit Cards (TCK art. 245): This crime comes into question when another person’s card information is used to transfer money to betting sites.
Disrupting or Altering Data in an Information System (TCK art. 244): Applied in cases where an unlawful benefit is obtained through illegal interference with the system.
2. Defense Strategies and Prominent Defenses
The main defense arguments presented by defendants and evaluated by courts in judicial decisions are as follows:
Absence of Intent and Material Reality: It should be argued that the defendant did not know that the money received in their account came from a fraud crime, and that the money was received in exchange for a legitimate transaction (in-game item sales, commercial receivables, etc.). The Istanbul 7th High Criminal Court (2024/117 M.), finding the defendant’s defense that they received payment in exchange for the sale of virtual currency (Won) in the “Metin2” game to be consistent with the ordinary course of life, acquitted the defendant.
Giving the Account/Card to Third Parties: It can be argued that the account or bank card was used by another person based on a relationship of trust (e.g., credit score improvement, tax debt, a friend’s request, etc.), but there was no intention to commit a crime. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals stipulates that in such a situation, it must be meticulously investigated whether the defendant had a “will to participate” (in the crime).
IP and Technical Data Objections: It should be argued that the IP address where the transaction took place is not linked to the defendant, that the internet line was unsecured, or that it might have been used by others (Supreme Court of Appeals 8th Criminal Department, 2018/12444 E. ).
Good Faith Player Defense: It should be emphasized that the person merely placed bets and had no obligation to question the source of the money won, and was not part of a fraudulent organization.
3. Trial Process and Necessary Investigations
For courts to establish the “material truth beyond any doubt,” the following points must be investigated:
Money Flow and Account Activities: Determination of which account the money came from, how long it stayed in the defendant’s account after transfer, and by whom it was withdrawn (ATM, teller, internet).
IP Address Examination: Whether the IP addresses used during money transfers or betting site memberships match the defendant’s residence or mobile device.
Membership Information: Requesting relevant membership information (e-mail, phone, IP) from betting or gambling companies to determine if there is a connection with the defendant.
Camera Records: Examining security camera footage from ATMs or bank branches where the money was withdrawn to identify the person who carried out the transaction.
Witness Statements: Hearing the victims who sent the money and, if any, third parties who facilitated the use of the account, as witnesses.
4. Additional Context Obtained from Secondary Sources
Secondary Source Note: According to the decision of the Istanbul 15th Civil Court of Commerce (2021/806 E.), promissory notes issued for illegal betting debt are considered “imperfect obligations” and cannot be collected; this situation indicates that the illegal betting connection can also be used as evidence in civil courts.
Secondary Source Note: The decision of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, 4th Civil Chamber (2024/420 E.), emphasizes that banks can file recourse lawsuits against account holders to whom money was transferred in fraud cases, but the causal link and the degree of fault must be meticulously examined.
Secondary Source Note: The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2024/2293 E.) indicates that a person who allows another to use their account in exchange for money can be held responsible for complicity in the crime of fraud, even if they did not personally withdraw the money; however, a retrial is possible if new evidence (such as the confession of the main perpetrator) emerges.
Secondary Source Note: The 11th Criminal Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice (2017/1598 E.) states that inconsistencies in the defendant’s statements and signatures on bank account opening documents are critical evidence for conviction.
Conclusion: The determination of the offense classification (fraud, theft, or betting intermediary) during the trial process varies according to the defendant’s intent and technical evidence. The defense should focus on ignorance regarding the source of the money and concrete evidence (correspondence, game records, etc.) should be included.
Sadece bahis oynadım, paranın dolandırıcılıktan geldiğini bilmiyordum – yine de ceza alır mıyım?
Ceza sorumluluğu bakımından en kritik unsur kasttır. Eğer kişi hesabına gelen paranın dolandırıcılık kaynaklı olduğunu bilmiyor ve bunu bilmesini gerektiren somut bir emare de yoksa, dolandırıcılık suçundan mahkûmiyet için gerekli olan manevi unsur oluşmayabilir.
Mahkemeler şu soruların cevabını araştırır:
Para hangi hesaptan geldi?
Hesap sahibi parayı ne kadar sürede çekti?
ATM görüntülerinde işlemi kim yaptı?
İşlem yapılan IP adresi sanıkla bağlantılı mı?
Hesap, üçüncü kişilere bilinçli şekilde mi kullandırıldı?
Yargı kararlarında, örneğin oyun içi satış gibi meşru bir ticari faaliyetin ispatlanabildiği durumlarda beraat kararları verilebildiği görülmektedir. Ancak hesabın para karşılığı başkasına kullandırılması halinde, kişi parayı bizzat çekmese bile “suça iştirak” değerlendirmesi yapılabilmektedir.
Bu nedenle her dosya, teknik veriler ve para trafiği analiz edilerek ayrı ayrı değerlendirilir.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
Virtual betting and fraud-related cases;
MASAK reports
HTS and IP analyses
Bank account activities
ATM camera records
International money transfer chains
Include technical and complex evidence such as criminal and IT law precedents.
The correct determination of the offense classification (is it fraud, theft, or betting intermediary?) directly affects the amount of the penalty. Incorrect classification can lead to serious criminal proceedings and the risk of long-term imprisonment.
In such cases, technical objections made at an early stage (IP matching, duration of money traffic, lack of intent to participate, causal link) can completely change the course of the lawsuit.
Therefore, developing a defense strategy with an expert lawyer in the field of criminal law and cybercrimes is critically important for both reducing the risk of conviction and ensuring the disclosure of material truth.
